By Alex Ter Adum
The suggestion by Segun Showunmi that the announcement or publication of election results by political parties amounts to treason is not merely legally untenable; it is an unfortunate attempt to criminalise legitimate political participation and public communication in a democracy.
Treason is a grave criminal offence. It is not a convenient label to attach to political conduct one dislikes. Any person who makes such a serious allegation must identify the specific law, the prohibited conduct and the elements of the offence allegedly committed. Political rhetoric cannot substitute for the law.
- WHAT DOES THE ELECTORAL ACT ACTUALLY SAY?
The Electoral Act 2026 provides the statutory framework for the conduct of elections, the collation and declaration of results, and the responsibilities of electoral officials. The provisions governing polling-unit results, collation and declaration must be read in their proper context.
Sections 60(2)–(4), 62, 66 and 68 of the Electoral Act 2026 are relevant to the statutory processes for recording, transmitting, collating and declaring election results. These provisions regulate the conduct of elections and the responsibilities of the officials and institutions entrusted with those processes.
The critical legal distinction is between the official declaration of election results by the authorised electoral officer and the independent publication of results collated by political parties, candidates, agents or observers.
A political party that collates figures from its polling-unit agents and communicates those figures to its members or the public does not, merely by doing so, usurp the statutory powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The official declaration remains the responsibility of the legally authorised electoral officers. However, nothing should be construed as automatically converting the independent communication of party-collated figures into treason simply because INEC has not yet made its final declaration.
If Showunmi contends that a particular provision expressly criminalises the publication of party-collated results, he should identify that provision and demonstrate how the alleged conduct satisfies its elements.
- THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, subject to constitutionally permissible limitations.
Election results, political developments and the conduct of public institutions are matters of legitimate public interest.
Political parties have a legitimate interest in communicating information obtained through their agents, subject to the law. Citizens and the media likewise have legitimate interests in discussing electoral processes and scrutinising the conduct of elections.
These rights do not confer authority to falsify results, impersonate electoral officials, obstruct the lawful collation process or interfere unlawfully with election materials. Nor do they displace INEC’s statutory authority.
But the existence of those limitations does not justify the sweeping assertion that publishing party-collated results is treason.
The law distinguishes between protected political expression, conduct that may constitute a specific electoral offence, and the exceptional criminal offence of treason. Those categories must not be conflated.
- TREASON IS NOT A CATCH-ALL OFFENCE
Treason is a serious offence under Nigerian criminal law. Its constituent elements must be established in accordance with the applicable legislation and the constitutional requirement of proof.
Section 37 of the Criminal Code Act addresses treason and related conduct within its applicable jurisdiction. The relevant provisions of the Penal Code must likewise be considered where applicable.
Neither the Criminal Code nor the Penal Code should be invoked carelessly to criminalise conduct that does not satisfy the statutory elements of the relevant offence.
If an individual deliberately fabricates electoral figures, circulates false information with the requisite criminal intent, forges election documents or commits another unlawful act, the appropriate legal consequences must be assessed under the specific law applicable to that conduct.
That is fundamentally different from declaring that the mere publication of party-collated results constitutes treason.
A grave criminal accusation requires legal precision. It cannot rest on political suspicion, personal opinion or an exaggerated interpretation of electoral regulations.
- PARTY AGENTS AND POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT SPECTATORS
Political parties participate in elections through candidates, polling-unit agents, ward structures, local government representatives and other authorised personnel. These agents observe proceedings, obtain information and report results through their respective party structures.
Their participation is an integral feature of electoral competition. It allows political parties to compare their records, identify discrepancies and raise complaints through the appropriate legal and administrative channels.
The fact that INEC retains responsibility for official declarations does not mean that every other participant must remain silent about information lawfully obtained during the process.
Where party figures differ from official results, the proper response is verification, transparent collation, investigation and recourse to the relevant electoral and judicial mechanisms.
Where a particular publication violates an identifiable law, the applicable provision should be cited and enforced. It is irresponsible to leap from a disagreement over electoral procedure to an allegation of treason without establishing the legal elements of that offence.
- THE UNFORTUNATE DENIGRATION OF MKO ABIOLA
Even more troubling is the reported attempt to associate the late Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the annulled 12 June 1993 presidential election, with the label of a treasonable felon.
MKO Abiola occupies a defining place in Nigeria’s democratic history. His struggle became a symbol of the people’s demand for democratic choice, political accountability and respect for the sanctity of the ballot.
The annulment of the 12 June 1993 election remains one of the darkest episodes in Nigeria’s democratic experience. Abiola’s subsequent detention and death transformed his story into an enduring symbol of the struggle for democratic restoration.
To invoke treason carelessly in a discussion of democratic participation, while denigrating a figure whose legacy is inseparable from Nigeria’s democratic struggle, demonstrates a disturbing disregard for historical context and the gravity of criminal accusations.
One may debate historical personalities, their decisions and their political legacies. But intellectual honesty requires a distinction between legitimate historical criticism and the reckless deployment of criminal labels.
And to the Yoruba people, whose history, dignity and democratic consciousness are deeply intertwined with the legacy of Oduduwa, the memory of MKO Abiola deserves serious and responsible treatment. Let the spirit of Oduduwa stand as a reminder that the dignity of a people and the integrity of their democratic aspirations must not be trampled upon by careless words.
No political commentator should imagine that a provocative statement becomes legally sound merely because it is delivered with confidence.
- SHOWUNMI MUST CITE THE LAW OR WITHDRAW THE ALLEGATION
Segun Showunmi should identify the precise provision of the Electoral Act, the Constitution, the Criminal Code or the applicable Penal Code that makes the independent publication of party-collated election results treason.
He must also explain how the essential elements of that offence are established by the conduct he condemns.
If he cannot do so, he should withdraw the allegation and apologise for misleading the public about the nature of Nigerian electoral and criminal law.
Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, not a political theatre in which the most dramatic accusation becomes the law.
The distinction is straightforward: INEC’s authority to make official declarations must be respected, but that authority does not automatically transform the independent communication of party-collated figures into treason.
The law must be cited, not invented. Treason must be proved, not shouted. And democracy must be defended, not criminalised through political rhetoric.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
D-37 POLICY THINK TANK
